Lack of Love for Defensemen

[bbtt]

Are there any others out there that are tired of the lack of love showed towards those playing defense? First off, the only statistics that are given exposure are goals for (Forwards) or goals against (Goalies). While they can score goals, they will never has as many as a productive forward. Furthermore, due to the lack of "statistics", they are hardly ever chosen for awards. Of the last 8 USCHO defensive players of the week, only 2 of the 8 were defensemen. The other six were goalies. Even more alarming, is of the 14 that received runner-up status, only one was a defenseman. I am not saying that the goalies that received the awards didn't deserve it - they are all awesome. But maybe we should also put equal thought into rewarding the defense as well. Any ideas?

[dave1381]

And that's a problem with all awards at the conference and national level -- USCHO is just one example. And when players do win conference awards, it's because they give "Defensive Player of the Week" to a defenseman who puts up points, typically on the power play, which is even more of a waste of a defensive award in my opinion.

It's as you say, a fundamental problem of lack of information and costs of gathering information. It's a fundamental problem of finding an objective, uniform way to evaluate defensemen, which really isn't feasible on a weekly basis. It's also a problem of weekly awards being given to a top-end, standout performance. Defensemen can be more consistent week-to-week than goalies, but if you're looking for one standout in an individual week, it's much easier to pinpoint a goalie who does well. The problem with D is any given week, there can a bunch of D who play great, and how do you pick between them? So I've just listed a bunch of problems -- and I don't see any feasible solution, really.

[dave1381]

Of couse one solution is to have a separate award for D and goalies -- I really don't think it's reasonable to compare the two. The D award will end up looking fairly arbitrary since there aren't a lot of stats to back it up, but it would be better than nothing.

[PrincetonFan]

It's a problem to evaluate athletes without benefit of statistics--look at offensive lineman in football. Also, with a sport that has such little media coverage like women's hockey, statistics are essential to evaluating players. If you don't see a team play, that's about all you've got to use.

[ARM]

I agree -- Jen Jonsson, a senior last year at MSU-Mankato, was one of the best defense-first defensemen that I've ever seen play in the WCHA, but I doubt that many outside of the league have ever even heard of her.

[DC78-82]

I noticed too, on the 2007 Patty Kaz speculation thread, that people were only willing to grudgingly submit to having a token defenseman on the list, and a mere mention of a goalie maybe as a top 10 finalist. Patty Kazmaier was a defenseman. I had the honor and priviledge not just of playing against her in college, but on a team with her sister Kathy - a GOALIE!!! What would they think??

[Watch Dawg]

I could not agree more with the lack of respect shown to defensive defensmen. Often, they are major contributors to a successful program and take a lot of pride in the little things that make a good player. Coaches and informed fans recognize their efforts, but there is no recognition statistically or with formal awards.

The solution is pretty simple. Develop 3 catagories: Offensive, Defensive and Goalie. Track +/- for the defensive catagory and add some weight to scoring. For example, 80% on the +/- and 20% on scoring.

I have noticed that most teams track +/-, but many box scores are lacking. You would think that this could be solved with a directive to the official scorers.

I wrote to USCHO, covering exactly this issue, a couple of years ago - no response.

[DC78-82]

How about Nicole Goguen at UNH? Arguably one of the most underrated defensive defenseman in women's college hockey. She doesn't put up points, but she is flawless at defense in any situation, a great support act offensively, and takes very few penalties. She will be hard to replace when her eligibility is up.

[Crazy Otto]

Well the NHL does the same thing, they recognize d-men who put up points but not the stay-at-home, "shut down" defenseman who the opposing forwards hate to play against and who breaks up rushes, kills penalties and plays physical in his end. There was some discussion a few times to create an award for defensemen in addition to the Norris Trophy (one suggested name was the "Stevens Trophy" in honor of Scott Stevens) which would be sort of like a Selke for d-men.

[Watch Dawg]

How about Nicole Goguen at UNH? Arguably one of the most underrated defensive defenseman in women's college hockey. She doesn't put up points, but she is flawless at defense in any situation, a great support act offensively, and takes very few penalties. She will be hard to replace when her eligibility is up.

Great catagory to be considered - low penalty minutes.

[dave1381]

I noticed too, on the 2007 Patty Kaz speculation thread, that people were only willing to grudgingly submit to having a token defenseman on the list, and a mere mention of a goalie maybe as a top 10 finalist. Patty Kazmaier was a defenseman. I had the honor and priviledge not just of playing against her in college, but on a team with her sister Kathy - a GOALIE!!! What would they think??
You're talking about my post -- I was discussing predictions, not who I thought win. Yes, the past history is that defensive defensemen (or defensive forwards for that matter) will get overlooked, so in terms of predictions, I don't think you can argue much with my assessment of the situation.

[dave1381]

I could not agree more with the lack of respect shown to defensive defensmen. Often, they are major contributors to a successful program and take a lot of pride in the little things that make a good player. Coaches and informed fans recognize their efforts, but there is no recognition statistically or with formal awards.
The best they will get is end-of-season awards.

The solution is pretty simple. Develop 3 catagories: Offensive, Defensive and Goalie. Track +/- for the defensive catagory and add some weight to scoring. For example, 80% on the +/- and 20% on scoring.Maybe this is somewhat useful for evaulating players over the course of a season, but it's pretty useless in terms of evaluating weekly awards. You get a ton of D every week who aren't on the ice when goals are allowed, and don't take any penalty minutes -- so you'd still have the same problem of having the offense basically determine everything.

It goes back to what a said before -- it's a lot more sensible to evaluate defensive players over the course of a season rather than through weekly awards. Over a season, you can survey coaches, players, etc. find who they thought was the toughest opponent they faced, etc., over the course of the season, take a big sample, average it out, and that's probably about the best you could do. And league awards are ultimately a survey of coaches.

I have noticed that most teams track +/-, but many box scores are lacking. You would think that this could be solved with a directive to the official scorers.My impression is +/- is kept track of by the sports information folk, and usually it requires extra labor in the press box to keep it.
I wrote to USCHO, covering exactly this issue, a couple of years ago - no response.
And what did you ask USCHO to do exactly? That's not clear from your post.

[dave1381]

Well the NHL does the same thing, they recognize d-men who put up points but not the stay-at-home, "shut down" defenseman who the opposing forwards hate to play against and who breaks up rushes, kills penalties and plays physical in his end. There was some discussion a few times to create an award for defensemen in addition to the Norris Trophy (one suggested name was the "Stevens Trophy" in honor of Scott Stevens) which would be sort of like a Selke for d-men.

And to go back to the NFL awards, there's no "Offensive Lineman" award of the week that I know of... but they do honor OL players in the Pro Bowl. It's the same problem -- players in that position are very hard to evaluate week-to-week rather than over the course of the season, and there's no real solution.

[DC78-82]

You're talking about my post -- I was discussing predictions, not who I thought win. Yes, the past history is that defensive defensemen (or defensive forwards for that matter) will get overlooked, so in terms of predictions, I don't think you can argue much with my assessment of the situation.

Sorry - not disputing your prediction at all - just the fact that you're probably going to be 100% right. And I'm a forward!

[Watch Dawg]

The best they will get is end-of-season awards.

Maybe this is somewhat useful for evaulating players over the course of a season, but it's pretty useless in terms of evaluating weekly awards. You get a ton of D every week who aren't on the ice when goals are allowed, and don't take any penalty minutes -- so you'd still have the same problem of having the offense basically determine everything.

It goes back to what a said before -- it's a lot more sensible to evaluate defensive players over the course of a season rather than through weekly awards. Over a season, you can survey coaches, players, etc. find who they thought was the toughest opponent they faced, etc., over the course of the season, take a big sample, average it out, and that's probably about the best you could do. And league awards are ultimately a survey of coaches.

My impression is +/- is kept track of by the sports information folk, and usually it requires extra labor in the press box to keep it.

And what did you ask USCHO to do exactly? That's not clear from your post.

1.End of the seaon awards are better than nothing.

2. You can make arguments for the inaccuracy of stats for the forwards and goalies as well. They may not be totally accurate, but at least players get recognized.

3. If +/- will not work because of lack of labor, have the coaches submit their player or their opponent's player.

4. I suggested to USCHO that they develop 3 catagories by adding a defensman award and gave them some of the same ideas about criteria.

I'm glad this thread was started. I think these kids deserve attention. And, where there is a will, there is a way. Maybe we could come up with some basic criteria for a weekly award and get the powers that be thinking about it. :)

[dave1381]

3. If +/- will not work because of lack of labor, have the coaches submit their player or their opponent's player.

Even if coaches were willing to do that (most would probably leave the awards to their SIDs, I'm guessing, and I question how well SIDs would evaluate defensemen, since they too, are spending the bulk of their time tracking saves and points), you still face the dilemma of picking between D without a whole lot of information to distinguish them. You'd really have to have it be a weekly essay contest. With goalie and forward stats, you can at lease factor in quantity, the quality of the opponent, the context of the goal and the saves, etc, etc.

Not saying it's a bad idea, just that's it a lot harder to do it.

Also be happy that USCHO still has women's weekly awards -- the site hasn't had them on the men's side all season.

[Hux]

Even if coaches were willing to do that (most would probably leave the awards to their SIDs, I'm guessing, and I question how well SIDs would evaluate defensemen, since they too, are spending the bulk of their time tracking saves and points), you still face the dilemma of picking between D without a whole lot of information to distinguish them. You'd really have to have it be a weekly essay contest. With goalie and forward stats, you can at lease factor in quantity, the quality of the opponent, the context of the goal and the saves, etc, etc.

Not saying it's a bad idea, just that's it a lot harder to do it.

Also be happy that USCHO still has women's weekly awards -- the site hasn't had them on the men's side all season.

I know Hockey East includes the on-ice numbers of players when a goal is scored, thus making +/- easy to compute. Obviously that isn't a very good indicator of a Ds worth. How many shots do they block? How many rebounds do they clear? How many breakouts did they create via a headman? How many passes did they intercept? How many rushes did they break up with a poke check, or by angling the player into the boards? Obviously you could go on and on.

You would probably need a stat crew of at least three to track all that goes on in a game.

[Watch Dawg]

I know Hockey East includes the on-ice numbers of players when a goal is scored, thus making +/- easy to compute. Obviously that isn't a very good indicator of a Ds worth. How many shots do they block? How many rebounds do they clear? How many breakouts did they create via a headman? How many passes did they intercept? How many rushes did they break up with a poke check, or by angling the player into the boards? Obviously you could go on and on.

You would probably need a stat crew of at least three to track all that goes on in a game.

GMs in the NHL put a lot of value on +/- for both forwards and defense. Why? Because it is very good indicator that a player is doing all the things that you listed above. All of those same efforts also apply to a forward, yet goals and assists are used as the benchmark. Not necessarily the perfect system, but it is used, and players get recognition.

So, if we use the KISS method (Keep It Simple, Stupid), like they have with forwards and goalies, you can develop a defenseman catagory.

Most of the comments on this thread are finding ways not to do it. What do you think "bbtt"?

[bbtt]

I agree. It's easy to get caught up in the argument that it is too difficult to find a method to reward good defenseman. I was actually getting lulled into it myself.:o

As I said before, there may be no one "right" statistic, however, I do find it alarming that the defenseman don't even make the honorable mentions for player of the week. What does it matter if we create a category for defenseman that is not 100% accurate? Even if we get the award wrong some of the time, it is a start in the right direction. Maybe by starting to recognize them, a method of keeping stats will emerge that is not so difficult/time consuming.

[bbtt]

And the ironic thing is, I probably care more about this than the defenseman. They are guided by their own internal desire to make a difference but again, this isn't a reason to not start.

What got me started thinking about this was a defenseman's eulogy from a few years ago. It was one of the senseless tragedies that hit hockey families especially hard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To paraphrase what was said:

He loved to play defense, to live life on the blue line. It takes a very special person to take on that position and its burdensome responsibility. It is a unique position for unique people. It requires special skills - physically and emotionally - to play it at a high level. There are those players who are flashy and call for attention – heck, we make them forwards.

But to play the blue line – that is special.

A defenseman who lives on the blue line needs to be rock steady, unflappable, ready to accept the challenges others can’t or won’t take on. He’s the one people look to when times get tough to save the team.

When you live on the blue line, you live a little on the edge. You have confidence in your skills and abilities; you are willing to take more risks than others. Sometimes you fail because of the risks you take, but you bounce back from adversity. You thrive on the challenge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I left out the pieces that were personal to that young man, but the underlying characteristics are true of many that play that position.